RUMOR: via Twitter... Matt Forte to Patriots talk...

[Blizzzard]

When are we getting the beast?

He's coming over along with Adam Seward, as part of a 3 team trade

 

[Frezo]

Will this thread ever die!

Ugh! :bricks:

...........

 

[PonyExpress]

Pats and Matt Forte

Before 2006 season Pats had the chance to pick up Thomas Jones then with Bears, instead drafted Maroney, a decision that cost them at least one SB IMO. Matt Forte is available for right price in a trade. That is a deal I would make. And I am very high on Pats Rbs, but Forte's ability as a receiver could turn him into a superstar in this offense, reducing actual and psychological pressure on Brady in big games.

 

[randomk1]

Re: Pats and Matt Forte

In before merged

 

[Calciumee]

This thread is still open?

Why???

 

[Ron Sellers]

Re: Pats and Matt Forte

Before 2006 season Pats had the chance to pick up Thomas Jones then with Bears, instead drafted Maroney, a decision that cost them at least one SB IMO. Matt Forte is available for right price in a trade. That is a deal I would make. And I am very high on Pats Rbs, but Forte's ability as a receiver could turn him into a superstar in this offense, reducing actual and psychological pressure on Brady in big games.

First off, why in the world should a team trade for a player today based on a personnel decision from six years ago? I'm trying to make the connection; is it because Jones and Forte were/are with the Bears? If Jones had signed elsewhere, does that then mean that the Pats should trade for the running back that Jones signed with instead of Chicago?



Second of all there is this very real thing called a salary cap in the NFL. While it would be nice to sign the best player available at every position, every year, that's just not practical. Even if the Pats could fit Forte under the cap this year, it would have a huge impact on who they are (or are not) able to re-sign in 2013, 2014, and 2015. The price of trading for Forte (draft picks) is not the issue; the issue is what players the Pats will not be able to sign going forward should they do so.

It's similar to Newton's law of motion - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

 

[Reckedtrek]

This thread is still open?

Why???

Forte is this years Peppers, who was that years Seward. It all goes back to Seward. And Barwin.

 

[PonyExpress]

Re: Pats and Matt Forte

First off, why in the world should a team trade for a player today based on a personnel decision from six years ago? I'm trying to make the connection; is it because Jones and Forte were/are with the Bears? If Jones had signed elsewhere, does that then mean that the Pats should trade for the running back that Jones signed with instead of Chicago?



Second of all there is this very real thing called a salary cap in the NFL. While it would be nice to sign the best player available at every position, every year, that's just not practical. Even if the Pats could fit Forte under the cap this year, it would have a huge impact on who they are (or are not) able to re-sign in 2013, 2014, and 2015. The price of trading for Forte (draft picks) is not the issue; the issue is what players the Pats will not be able to sign going forward should they do so.

It's similar to Newton's law of motion - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

In 2006 if the pats had made an easy deal for T. Jones (a 3rd rd pick) they would have won multiple SBs. Instead, they foolishly made a poor talent evaluation at rb in the draft (Maroney) and set the stage for the pass-happy big game flopping offense we have witnessed for the last 6 seasons.

Now 6 seasons and 0 titles later, with one of the best QBs in history still on the roster, they are coincidentally facing a similar situation. A quality veteran rb who happens to play for the Bears may be available by trade. This running back is younger and better than Jones. Forte has the cachet to receive carries in big games, unlike the young players currently on the roster whom Brady and his caddy offensive coordinators tend to foolishly ignore, especially in tight playoff games, in favor of 75-25 pass-run ratios.

Forte is a superior pass catcher, a gifted runner, runs with combination of finesse and power. In this offense he would be lethal, and take pressure off of our QB, who without strong backfield help has shown a trend of wilting in the playoffs in recent years.

Most importantly, Forte's signing would signal a change in offensive philosophy, an acknowledgement by BB that the pressure on Brady to do everything is more than any single great player should bear. Even the greatest QBs are aided by quality rbs. (Montana-Craig, Manning-Addai, Brady-Dillon, Aikman-Smith, Bradshaw-Harris, Staubach-Dorsett, ad infinitum). Forte fits the bill in every respect.

As far as your salary cap concerns, no team that truly wanted a player has ever been limited by the cap. They make it work when they want it to work. Reference to a "salary cap" is a red herring by which management can justify to a fan base the refusal to issue signing bonuses.

 

[Sciz]

Re: Pats and Matt Forte

As far as your salary cap concerns, no team that truly wanted a player has ever been limited by the cap. They make it work when they want it to work. Reference to a "salary cap" is a red herring by which management can justify to a fan base the refusal to issue signing bonuses.

Okay, then how do the Steelers clear up $10M so they can afford Mike Wallace?

 

[supafly]

Re: Pats and Matt Forte

Okay, then how do the Steelers clear up $10M so they can afford Mike Wallace?

They don't.

They already factored in his RFA tender, which is 2.74 million.

The Steelers are perfectly fine with the Mike Wallace situation for 2012.

Apparently they realize that they can cross that bridge when they get to it next February; and even then, they can likely deal with the situation as it pertains to them at that time.

I'm not agreeing with 'the cap is crap' theory, but I will agree with the fact that they could've made some other moves to free up money...had they wanted to do such.

I think they could've moved on without Casey Hampton and his 5 million dollar salary, especially considering that he tore his ACL in the playoff game vs Denver. Instead, they decided to keep him, even though they used 2 of their past 3 first round picks (Hood, Heyward) on defensive line positions. They could've moved Hood to NT, where he's played already, or chosen to pick up a guy low cost like A.Franklin, who's still on the market. Instead, they didn't.

To me, that states that it was more of a decision than we are giving them credit for.

They easily could've realized the benefit of freeing up some room by letting go of Hampton + a restructure or two VS. signing Wallace to a long term contract. Instead, they decided to roll the dice with Wallace and his deal.

The REAL and only way we'd know how much they want/value Wallace is if someone else gave him an offer. Then they'd either have to try and match the offer (by likely getting rid of another guy or two + a restructure/two), or realize that his demands are already out of their price range.

 

[ProudestRyno]

Re: Pats and Matt Forte

In 2006 if the pats had made an easy deal for T. Jones (a 3rd rd pick) they would have won multiple SBs. Instead, they foolishly made a poor talent evaluation at rb in the draft (Maroney) and set the stage for the pass-happy big game flopping offense we have witnessed for the last 6 seasons.

Now 6 seasons and 0 titles later, with one of the best QBs in history still on the roster, they are coincidentally facing a similar situation. A quality veteran rb who happens to play for the Bears may be available by trade. This running back is younger and better than Jones. Forte has the cachet to receive carries in big games, unlike the young players currently on the roster whom Brady and his caddy offensive coordinators tend to foolishly ignore, especially in tight playoff games, in favor of 75-25 pass-run ratios.

Forte is a superior pass catcher, a gifted runner, runs with combination of finesse and power. In this offense he would be lethal, and take pressure off of our QB, who without strong backfield help has shown a trend of wilting in the playoffs in recent years.

Most importantly, Forte's signing would signal a change in offensive philosophy, an acknowledgement by BB that the pressure on Brady to do everything is more than any single great player should bear. Even the greatest QBs are aided by quality rbs. (Montana-Craig, Manning-Addai, Brady-Dillon, Aikman-Smith, Bradshaw-Harris, Staubach-Dorsett, ad infinitum). Forte fits the bill in every respect.

As far as your salary cap concerns, no team that truly wanted a player has ever been limited by the cap. They make it work when they want it to work. Reference to a "salary cap" is a red herring by which management can justify to a fan base the refusal to issue signing bonuses.

This post is hilarious.

 

[mgteich]

Re: Pats and Matt Forte

The time is almost there when we will see offers to RFA players. I think the stellers will NOT be in good shape if a teams offers Wallace a level $10M a year contact, or even a 3 year contract including an $8M 2012 salary and a $6M bonus. In any case, PITT would need to free up $10M in order to keep Wallace. And there may be teams willing to pay such amounts for Wallace. Or perhaps someone signs Wallace for a bit less.

They don't.

They already factored in his RFA tender, which is 2.74 million.

The Steelers are perfectly fine with the Mike Wallace situation for 2012.

Apparently they realize that they can cross that bridge when they get to it next February; and even then, they can likely deal with the situation as it pertains to them at that time.

I'm not agreeing with 'the cap is crap' theory, but I will agree with the fact that they could've made some other moves to free up money...had they wanted to do such.

I think they could've moved on without Casey Hampton and his 5 million dollar salary, especially considering that he tore his ACL in the playoff game vs Denver. Instead, they decided to keep him, even though they used 2 of their past 3 first round picks (Hood, Heyward) on defensive line positions. They could've moved Hood to NT, where he's played already, or chosen to pick up a guy low cost like A.Franklin, who's still on the market. Instead, they didn't.

To me, that states that it was more of a decision than we are giving them credit for.

They easily could've realized the benefit of freeing up some room by letting go of Hampton + a restructure or two VS. signing Wallace to a long term contract. Instead, they decided to roll the dice with Wallace and his deal.

The REAL and only way we'd know how much they want/value Wallace is if someone else gave him an offer. Then they'd either have to try and match the offer (by likely getting rid of another guy or two + a restructure/two), or realize that his demands are already out of their price range.

 

[supafly]

Re: Pats and Matt Forte

The time is almost there when we will see offers to RFA players. I think the stellers will NOT be in good shape if a teams offers Wallace a level $10M a year contact, or even a 3 year contract including an $8M 2012 salary and a $6M bonus. In any case, PITT would need to free up $10M in order to keep Wallace. And there may be teams willing to pay such amounts for Wallace. Or perhaps someone signs Wallace for a bit less.

The whole Wallace situation is certainly up in the air, but there's no doubt that the Steelers still hold the cards.

IF (and that's a big IF) someone can match Wallace's demands and offer him a deal, the Steelers then have 2 choices:

1. To get compensation in the form of a 1st rounder now, rather than nothing at all next yr (comp pick in the year after that). That isn't bad for a team who may have realized quite some time ago that:

a. Wallace is not worth his ridiculous asking price, and they realize that he is probably not worth 10 million per, let alone the 12-15 he's supposedly asking for.

b. No matter what, they are going to move on, and have been planning for this the whole time--a la A.Samuel here in 2007, and are going to get their one last yr of production from him.

c. They are much more concerned with A.Brown and his RFA situation next yr, realizing that they cannot keep them both.

d. They are prepared to try and make him an offer between now and next February, making the necessary adjustments where possible. This may even include the use of the franchise tag next yr, depending on whether or not they feel they can work it out, and IF he's worth it or not

e. They may be waiting for one more season to try and determine IF he's even worth the kind of money that the elite WR's obtain. With his 2nd half decline + a new system from new OC Todd Haley, they may very well want to see how he responds. Personally, I am not sold on him, and I would not offer him a huge long term deal. Another year of good production + the chance to see his weaknesses etc, may prove to be a good move.


2. They can then have a full week to make the necessary moves (starting with the removal of Hampton) to make their arrangements and attempt to keep Wallace. My guess is that they would not try as hard as some people think, and are more than happy to walk away with a 1st rounder.

No matter what, they still hold the cards, and made the moves that they thought were best for their current situation. If someone offers Wallace a deal, that situation will then be re-prioritized.

 

[PonyExpress]

Re: Pats and Matt Forte

This post is hilarious.

The truth hurts, and makes lunatics laugh.

 

[nukin]

Re: Pats and Matt Forte

The NFL should just make the total salary cap the same number as whatever the national debt is, and then each team can have as much money as whatever their states debt is (divided by how many teams play in that state). That would make just as much sense as having a cap in the first place, and we could afford Forte/Wallace:bricks:

 

[olschool]

Re: Pats and Matt Forte

The truth hurts, and makes lunatics laugh.

Sad but true.

SB36 : 25 rushes for 133 yds. = Win
SB38 : 35 rushes for 127 yds. = Win
SB39 : 28 rushes for 112 yds. = Win

SB42 : 16 rushes for 45 yds. = Loss
SB46 : 19 rushes for 83 yds. = Loss

I think I see a trend developing.

You're killing me over here BB.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Pats and Matt Forte

Sad but true.

SB36 : 25 rushes for 133 yds. = Win
SB38 : 35 rushes for 127 yds. = Win
SB39 : 28 rushes for 112 yds. = Win

SB42 : 16 rushes for 45 yds. = Loss
SB46 : 19 rushes for 83 yds. = Loss

I think I see a trend developing.

You're killing me over here BB.

Definition: Correlation

Definition: Causation

There's a difference.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Pats and Matt Forte

Sad but true.

SB36 : 25 rushes for 133 yds. = Win
SB38 : 35 rushes for 127 yds. = Win
SB39 : 28 rushes for 112 yds. = Win

SB42 : 16 rushes for 45 yds. = Loss
SB46 : 19 rushes for 83 yds. = Loss

I think I see a trend developing.

You're killing me over here BB.

Go back and look at the rushing numbers for the previous three winners of the Super Bowl prior to the Giants. Proof positive that you cannot win a Super Bowl without a strong running game. Not one of those teams got over 60 yards rushing in their Super Bowl wins.

 

[olschool]

Re: Pats and Matt Forte

Go back and look at the rushing numbers for the previous three winners of the Super Bowl prior to the Giants. Proof positive that you cannot win a Super Bowl without a strong running game. Not one of those teams got over 60 yards rushing in their Super Bowl wins.

I don't care about other teams, when the PATS can't run, they're doomed.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Pats and Matt Forte

I don't care about other teams, when the PATS can't run, they're doomed.

Since the Patriots went 5-2 in games where they rushed for 100 or fewer yards, went 3-1 in games where they rushed for 80 or fewer yards in a game, and went 1-1 in games with 60 yards or fewer in a game this past season, I assume that you realize that you're talking out of your ass here....?


Again, correlation and causation are not the same.